dismissed
EB-3
dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to follow procedural requirements. The petitioner stated they would submit a brief or additional evidence but failed to do so, and did not identify a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision.
Criteria Discussed
8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(A)(1)(V) (Summary Dismissal)
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services MATTER OF 0-P-M- Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: JUNE II, 2018 APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER The Petitioner, a starting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "registered nurse." It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant classification. Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at least two years of training or experience. The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and atlirmed the denial after the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 clays of the February 13,2018, tiling date. However, we have not received anything further from the Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified a spceilie, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). Cite as Mallero(O-P-M-, lD# 1559380 (AAO June 11, 2018)
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.